TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having a unit in NEPZ for manufacture and export of gold jewellery. They received 15 Kgs. of imported gold from M/s. MMTC (admittedly 7 Kgs by way of purchase and 8 Kgs. by way of loan from M/s. MMTC). They were required to manufacture gold jewellery and export the same directly in respect of gold purchased by them and through M/s. MMTC in respect of gold taken on loan by them. (b) On 18-3-06, on the basis of intelligence about alleged malpractice, strong room of the appellant was sealed by the Customs Authorities and a series of summons were issued and correspondence were exchanged basically aimed at verifying the factual position of availability of stock. (c) On 26-4-96, the strong roo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as established is not frustrated. There appears to be no appropriate ground to me to frame the charges under Section 406, 409 I.P.C. against the Accused. The charge is baseless and the Accused may be discharged at this stage. (f) Meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 22-12-98 was issued on the ground that the export obligation has not been fulfilled and gold procured duty free has not been accounted for and accordingly duty was sought to be demanded from M/s. MMTC, the importer and penalties were sought to be imposed on M/s. MMTC and the present appellants. (g) Commissioner vide order dated 13-4-05 confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 54,47,775/- from M/s. MMTC and imposed penalty of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by M/s. MMTC who are importer and therefore the charge levelled under Customs Act could only be held against M/s. MMTC. He also adds that it is not a case of the department that the appellant company colluded with the M/s. MMTC and mis-appropriated the gold imported duty free. Therefore no allegation of abetting and aiding the offence by M/s. MMTC can be sustained against them. Therefore, he seeks setting aside the penalty on appellants. 4.3 Alternatively, he submits that the appellants have suffered substantially as an amount of Rs. 28 lakhs was given by them to M/s. MMTC for the gold which went missing and therefore the penalty, if sustained, should be drastically reduced. 4.4 In para 1.19 of the order in original, the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Qty of gold 1. 7-11-94 1 Kg. 2. 11-11-94 2 Kg. 3. 21-11-94 2 Kg. 4. 25-11-94 5 Kg. 5. 28-12-94 3 Kg. 6. 8-12-95 3 Kg. Total 16 Kg. 6.2 Out of 16 kgs. of gold received, the appellant company claimed to have exported ornaments corresponding to 1 Kg of gold on 3.7.95. As on December, 1994, as per records, the appellant company was having stock of 12 Kgs. of gold or ornaments if the same were already converted. In this regard no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they required further gold weighing 3 Kgs. in December, 1995, either as loan or as purchase from the M/s. MMTC. This appears rather unusual and belies common sense. 6.3 It is not disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be appreciated. The summons is not a show cause notice seeking reply from the person summoned. As a director of the appellant company which has procured duty free gold, he was duty bound to appear before the Customs Authorities and answer the queries raised by the Customs authorities. 7.2 The submission of the learned advocate that the Commissioner in para 119 of the order in original has referred to anonymous statement and that there was no statement from anybody is factually incorrect. The appellant director failed to honour the summons. We also notice in para 6 of order in original that there is a reference to the statement of another director of the appellant company who has claimed to have resigned prior to the date of this ....